Talk:Armor Sets/Assault Armor/AfD Discussion
Article for Deletion Delete: This information is already clearly displayed on Armor Sets/Level 71-75. All three set pages are also linked on the template, which should be placed on any assault-related page, as can be seen below. In addition, Assault/Rewards by Category includes a piece-by-piece breakdown of all three sets, the jobs that can equip them, and all enhancements. This page really serves only to duplicate information with a slight monologue about gear that "gets you by," mule space, and the differences between FFXI and WoW. For reference, here is the aforementioned Assault Notes template: --Eleri 08:49, 11 July 2007 (CDT) Delete: Agree with above. The armor sets are more often recognized on their own (as in, separate armor pages). I don't see any point in having a page that lists them all together as well. The table is pretty and all, but this is pointless. Get rid of it. -- 09:41, 11 July 2007 (CDT) Keep: I think it's fine as is. It's just another way to organize information. If someone were looking through sets, these three are notably connected with each other. It allows someone to discover these nice sets without having to know about assault (and in finding them here, discover assault). I find no problems with keeping this page. -- 15:34, 11 July 2007 (CDT) Keep: Thank you Chrisjander. And @Eleri - I just made an edit to the actual "monologue" to eliminate any personal opinions on the gear, and keep it straight forward and resourceful. You were correct about that - I should not impose my personal opinions on the game as a whole in a page like this. Please consider the following table - with the only addition from myself being the "assault armor" This is a table that already exists. Look at "armor sets / salvage armor". This layout has already been in existence, its nothing "new" I'm introducing. Its a way to use the Armor page to look for Armor that people in game associate with a "where from?". I didn't add the Salvage armor link, and much like the Assault armor link, this site contains a "whole other place" where salvage information can be obtained. However, I found the salvage armor link to be very useful for summarizing differences between the gear sets, and also kept things organized in a a way that was logical. I included a link to the Assault information page, to make sure it was a two way door. The information is simply presented in a more friendly "point of interest" manner here - while in the assault information page, armor sets are an afterthought, while the "what/who/how/whys" of assault as a portion of the game, are considered first. How can you rationalize wanting to do away with this - when it is an identical implementation to the "salvage armor" link? Especially when I personally found that layout so useful in fact, that I took the time to implement one for Assault armor in its likeness? --Fujilives 15:41, 11 July 2007 (CDT) :Comment: The difference between the Salvage Armor page and the Assault Armor page is the fact that there are (in my personal aesthetic opinion) enough Salvage sets to dictate their own page, while Assault (only 3?) is questionable. The Assault Armor information is already put up directly compared against each other in two other places. The Salvage sets are linked in a template, it's true, but that's all; they have no other "home," existing ONLY on Armor Sets/Salvage Armor while Assault sets exist on Armor Sets/Level 71-75 AND Assault/Rewards by Category. They don't need a third place, and I don't think it's rational to remove them from a larger, more informative page to pare the number of duplications down. :In addition, I'd like to quote you: "I just put this up since I am frequently looking at assault gear SETS, not just "assault" as a whole, and I didn't see an already-existing Assault Armor Sets page. If There is one, I apologize for duplicating information." You have now been informed that you are duplicating information, and you have been pointed to the other places where this information already exists for your own better reference. How can I rationalize wanting to do away with this? The question is, when it's been posted in two places already, how can you rationalize not wanting to when you apologized if that was the case in the first place? :) --Eleri 08:33, 12 July 2007 (CDT) ::Reply to Comment When I said my original statement about the page - I emphasized the word "SETS" in all caps. I also said "Assault Armor Sets" page, not just a page about assault info, that also had armor info links buried at the bottom of it. This is not a duplicate - as there is no current other "SETS" page for assault. This is a very useful way to display information - and I've benefited from it on the other "SETS" lists already existing. There is no need to do away with them - they are very useful! --Fujilives 09:45, 12 July 2007 (CDT) Keep: Sometimes having things in multiple places is ok, considering how people are getting to the information. Is you are interested in Assault, you'd find the Assault/Rewards by Category and understand the sets. If you are interested in the sets themselves, you would find Armor Sets/Assault Armor. If anything is duplicative to me is is having these subsets in both the Armor Sets/Level 71-75 and the Armor Sets/Assault Armor. If we are being consistent, either they should be removed from Armor Sets/Level 71-75, or the other subsets, including the Armor Sets/Salvage Armor, should be added. -- 09:04, 12 July 2007 (CDT) :Comment: After some thinking about it, you make a good point. I went ahead and removed it from Armor Sets/Level 71-75 to prevent double listing there, and keep the information more fluid with things like Salvage Armor. --Fujilives 10:01, 12 July 2007 (CDT) Comment: I don't understand the double standards sometimes. It appears that if certain people make requests for articles to be deleted because information exists in multiple places and it doesn't need to, they get their requests catered to, and immediately deleted. But sometimes, when something absolutely pointless is taking up space, when the information is readily available in TWO other places, suddenly its a good thing to have the information repeated? If there are going to be standards, we need to start like, I dunno, abiding by them, instead of picking and choosing what should and shouldn't stay. This article is useless in comparison. Personally, if I am looking for armor sets for Assault, this page is definitely not something I'd use or even search for. Get rid of it. -- 09:15, 12 July 2007 (CDT) :Rely to Comment: It may not be what "you" would use to search for armor sets in assault, but it IS what I would use. Navigation wise, this is where I went to look for armor on assault. It wasn't there - so I added it in the same fashion of other armor sets. I had a co-worker check the site for Assault armor (he played FFXI a while back, but hasn't since). I didn't instruct him on how to navigate the site - he found the page I made on his own, a couple clicks in. It was the first place the logic in his brain lead him to - when searching for Assault Armor. This is why I enjoy the armor sets page - it helps me take in a lot of really good "Armor Specific" information very quickly - without having to do searches or scrolling through huge pages about stuff I don't care about. I mean really - why should I have to read about the specifics of assault missions, when I all I want is to look at armor... hence why this is in the Armor Sets page. --Fujilives 09:45, 12 July 2007 (CDT) ::This doesn't need to be listed in as many places as it currently is. The only problem I see here is that this article will remain solely based on being friends with administration. I'm sure that if my name, or anyone elses for that matter, was attached to it, it would be removed with little to no discussion at all. A simple check of level 70+ armor will get you this set. I stand by my assertion that this article is completely useless. But I also see no point in an AfD if its just going to be protected because of friends, instead of the fact that it doesn't need to exist. I distinctly remember the administration here using Wikipedias history of viciously protecting articles even if the information was incorrect, simply based on being friends with administration... can someone explain to me how this is any different? -- 09:59, 12 July 2007 (CDT) ::: This is not the case bud. I'm sorry you see it as that. I removed the part where I said hello, because perhaps saying hello to someone I havn't heard from in a while is wrong. But before you go off about something like this - I just clicked your name - and you have a direct link to Eleri's page, and openly state you two are close friends. Now how is it cool for one set of people to know one another and agree, but another set of people who know each other and agree is horrible? Is your opinion always the same as Eleri's? No. I would think Eleri's is often different than yours as well. I would not make that assumption - that just because you know one another you will always agree, now you are just being unfair all together. --Fujilives 10:07, 12 July 2007 (CDT) :::O.o That is a bold assertion that "friendship" has something to do with any decision made here. In fact, I'm downright appalled. It is a very, narrow viewpoint of yours to be taking if you believe just because someone disagrees with you that there is some underlying, malicious rationale for that disagreement. Point one under FFXIclopedia:Appropriate Behavior is to assume good faith. I would hope that two years of running this website would have proved to you that the Administrators of the website do act in good faith. However, if you are resigned to the belief that the Administrators operate under ulterior motives, you are welcomed to cease frequenting this website. Otherwise, take the time to realize that sometimes, someone may actually have a valid disagreement with your point of view. -- 12:10, 12 July 2007 (CDT) Delete: Per Eleri's first comment, there is no need for the information to be duplicated. -- 10:44, 12 July 2007 (CDT) :To resolve the issue of having duplicate information there, I have made changes and removed the duplicates of these armor sets from 71-75 listing, and put them more in line with how the salvage listing works. The Assault/Rewards by Category is an entirely different beast, since it includes -all- rewards and would not be considered an "armor set" listing, and could not be included in Armor Sets - as it wouldn't make sense. Nor would it fit the sites current style of displaying sets. Please also note that though there are only 3 current Assault sets, there is a large potential for that number to grow. Assault is one of the more popular aspects of FFXI at the moment, and I see high potential for gear growth there in future expansions / updates. Also keep in mind that Salvage only has 5 sets total, yet that is viewed as fine. I fail to see the difference between the two scenarios - please elaborate on what separates the distinction of gear sets I have made, and the distinction of gear sets already set in place. And if they are not approved of - then perhaps it is best to pool all of the sub-classes of armor sets together. What makes one deserving of a category - but another not? Why not just take "Artifact Armor" and pool it in with 50-60 gear. Why not take "Relic Armor", "Abjuration Armor", "Salvage Armor", and now "Assault Armor" and pool them in with level classifications? Why the separation for one and not the other? --Fujilives 11:36, 12 July 2007 (CDT) Keep: Man this really sucks. I was looking for a good armor set and found this post extremely useful i return today and now it looks like it's being deleted. :( --tabsrock Keep: # All information in the Armor Sets categories can be found elsewhere. It is all duplicative. To state that because it is on the Assault Notes Template and the Assault Rewards by Category means that it should not appear on its own Armor Sets page is a non-starter. If that rationale were to be followed, then it should also not appear on the Level 71-75 pages because it's appearance there would be duplicative of the Template and the Rewards page. (Although not up for debate here, I always that all the Armor Sets pages to be unnecessary. And even these summary pages unnecessary. But in the end, the community finds them useful, so they have become a part of our wiki.) # The argument about duplicative entries across the Level 71-75 vs the Assault page is a valid argument. They should not appear in both places. As noted below, therefore, the Assault Armor should be pulled off the Level 71-75 page. # The Assault Armor should appear on its own page because it is obtained through a specific end game event and is integrally tied to that event. Just as AF, Relic and Salvage armor are tied to their specific events, and therefore warrant their own subpage. More specifically, I believe the Nyzul Isle Armors should either be added to the Assault Armor Set page, or have their own separate page because they too are integrally tied to a "mini-game" event. (My vote would be to include on Assault Armor page ... with each group under separate subheading.) I also believe that the Artifact Armor and the Artifact Armor +1 sets should be on separate pages, as should the Relic Armor and Relic Armor +1 sets. These sets are obtained through completely different methods that therefore warrant their own pages. Finally, the low level sets of Armor obtained in Salvage should also be added to the Salvage page, separated by a subheading as well. # The criteria for breaking off a subset of Armor Sets should be whether or not that group of Armor sets is integrally tied to a specific game event or "mini-game" if you will. Thus far, those sets are as follows: ## Artifact Armor ## Artifact Armor +1 ## Abjuration Armor ## Relic Armor ## Relic Armor +1 ## Assault Armor ## Salvage Armor For the above stated reasons, I vote Keep. -- 11:59, 12 July 2007 (CDT) :I have arranged the armor sets you listed into thier own categories. It seemed to make sense to do so - and it works out pretty nicely. I also put a direct link at the top of each set listing to the "more specific" information pages on the gear. This way, people can see the set summaries, click the link - and instantly see how things are obtained etc. There is also plenty room to add to these sets with the way the table is set up - so more set pieces can be added in the future pretty easily - should there be new categories worth defining in upcoming expansions etc. --Fujilives 10:28, 13 July 2007 (CDT) Resolution: Keep. -- 19:32, 15 July 2007 (CDT)